Fine tuning, a new approach

[Oncedeceived]

You say that but you never ever say how they could even begin to know such a thing, be honest, it's just a feeling you and they have, sadly feelings prove only one thing, you are alive, we all have feelings so it's no big deal.

No, it is not just a feeling. I totally understand that you have not experienced God and so you have nothing to go on.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do we know that?

Science is a great tool. We have the technology to look back to the very first seconds of the universe's beginning.

 

[Nym]

So, numerous fine tuning threads have popped up recently, and all of them follow the same general pattern:

A very specific set of values for a number of constants cannot be much different than what they are for life as we know it to exist. Thus, some intelligent being must have set them to such values.

Now, the traditional approach is to dissect each link in the chain pointing out that different values do not rule out other forms of intelligence which we may or may not be able to conceive of, the possibility that further theoretical work may indicate that the values are deterministic much like inflation did for the cosmological constant. They may also point out that most such values are only "tuned" to an order of magnitude. These arguments often fail to convince as they tend to touch on levels of math and science that are not always the most intuitive (conflating very small numbers with very precise numbers comes up frequently)

Instead, let me ask this:

Assuming some intelligence set the numbers such as they are, does that require a finely tuned deity? To rephrase the argument above:

A very specific set of traits cannot be much different than what they are for a deity to create life as we know it. Thus, some intelligent being must have created such a deity.

Consider, what are the odds that, given one and only one deity:
That deity values life
That deity chose physical entities
That deity wishes to be discoverable by statistical methods
That deity does not wish to visibly maintain the underlying systems of the universe
... and so on.

Now, it seems to me if the second argument fails, so does the first. If neither fails, we are left with an infinite regression of singular, ever more powerful deities.

So, what is the failure of the fine tuned deity argument, and why does the analogous argument for a fine tuned universe fail?

God is just a word, that is like a seed in the mind, that begins to fill us in a manner that is whole, and gives us the sense of always having been, full, complete, without the effort of being it; which a good word for would be peace (an internal/conscious truth of where we came out of, so therefore never have to measure up to).

Just a thought.

 

[[serious]]

Science is a great tool. We have the technology to look back to the very first seconds of the universe's beginning.

And how could science look back that far unless some law of nature was constant that far back?

 

[Oncedeceived]

And how could science look back that far unless some law of nature was constant that far back?

Are you very familiar with the Big Bang theory? Space, Matter, energy and time didn't exist. How would the laws of nature exist when space, matter, energy and time didn't?

 

[Loudmouth]

They are measured in our finite universe much as God may be experienced in our finite universe.

Assuming for the moment that God did finely tune our universe . . .

I would also think that God has to made of something. God can't be nothing. You need to be made of something in order to interact with something.

Whatever that something is that God is made of, it would seem to me that the something has to follow some set of rational and consistent rules, otherwise God would just disappear at random, or be unable to interact with anything at random times. That doesn't sound like the omnipotent type of deity that God is described as.

Since God has to be made of something that acts in a rational and consistent manner, then God is also dependent on a universe with constants. That seems like a logical conclusion to me.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

The fine-tuning arguments, for me, seems to have some implications that believers always seem to ignore.

1. it means that life as we know it and the Universe require those constants in order to exist making them objective reality above the fine-tuner. Otherwise the constants could be anything and life would still exist in spite of what those constants were.

2. Those who argue fine-tuning most of the time also argue against abiogenesis and for the special creation of life itself, which completely undermines the fine-tuning argument because even if fine-tuning were the case life still wouldn't exist without intervention so the fine-tuning doesn't matter.

 

[Loudmouth]

2. Those who argue fine-tuning most of the time also argue against abiogenesis and for the special creation of life itself, which completely undermines the fine-tuning argument because even if fine-tuning were the case life still wouldn't exist without intervention so the fine-tuning doesn't matter.

I am glad that someone has come to the same conclusion I have. It would seem to me that a finely tuned universe would be a universe where abiogenesis would happen. If you require some sort of supernatural intervention to get life started, then why not use supernatural intervention the rest of the way? Create a universe where cosmic radiation is to energetic and too ubiquitous for life to exist, and then shield Earth from that radiation using a supernatural barrier. Create a universe incapable of producing oxygen, and then use supernatural processes to provide our bodies with oxygen.

If God can create a universe where all of these other needs are met through natural processes, why not abiogenesis. Why stop just short?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The fine-tuning arguments, for me, seems to have some implications that believers always seem to ignore.

1. it means that life as we know it and the Universe require those constants in order to exist making them objective reality above the fine-tuner. Otherwise the constants could be anything and life would still exist in spite of what those constants were.

You forget that the Fine Tuner wants the objective reality to be orderly and reasonable. The fine tuner also wants to allow a choice. One can choose to believe that the natural world is all there is and dismiss the evidence that points to the fine tuner or you can recognize that the design is that of a designer.

2. Those who argue fine-tuning most of the time also argue against abiogenesis and for the special creation of life itself, which completely undermines the fine-tuning argument because even if fine-tuning were the case life still wouldn't exist without intervention so the fine-tuning doesn't matter.

The universe and life itself wouldn't exist without intervention in terms of the fine tuning of the universe. It is all the same.

 

[[serious]]

Are you very familiar with the Big Bang theory? Space, Matter, energy and time didn't exist. How would the laws of nature exist when space, matter, energy and time didn't?

Certain aspects of physics break down at certain energy levels. This can happen at either extreme. For example, for very low temperatures you get bose Einstein condensates. This doesn't mean that all laws of physics break down there, just that some specific things become unknowable. In fact, it's because of the laws of physics that such condensates form.

Now, with the big bang, you have several decouplings that occurred as we look further and further back. One again, physics describes all of these. This goes back all the way to the the separation of gravitation from the unified force. We have about a Planck time before that which we think quantum gravitational forces dominated, and before that the state of the universe is theoretically unknowable according to the laws of physics as we understand them.

It isn't so much that nothing could have existed prior to that, but that anything prior to that is casually unrelated to our universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Certain aspects of physics break down at certain energy levels. This can happen at either extreme. For example, for very low temperatures you get bose Einstein condensates. This doesn't mean that all laws of physics break down there, just that some specific things become unknowable. In fact, it's because of the laws of physics that such condensates form.

Now, with the big bang, you have several decouplings that occurred as we look further and further back. One again, physics describes all of these. This goes back all the way to the the separation of gravitation from the unified force. We have about a Planck time before that which we think quantum gravitational forces dominated, and before that the state of the universe is theoretically unknowable according to the laws of physics as we understand them.

It isn't so much that nothing could have existed prior to that, but that anything prior to that is casually unrelated to our universe.

Which is what I said. Space, matter, energy and time didn't exist. If space, matter, energy, and time didn't exist the laws of physics could not exist.

 

[[serious]]

Which is what I said. Space, matter, energy and time didn't exist. If space, matter, energy, and time didn't exist the laws of physics could not exist.

No, you are misunderstanding. You are making two hard statements for which you have no supporting evidence. In addition, one of those points conflicts with one of your earlier claims:

1. You claim there was no mass or energy before the big bang. We have no way of assessing this. Nothing before the big bang has any causal relationship to our universe. We have no way of determining what was before the big bang because it has no impact on our universe.

2. You state that physics cannot exist without matter and energy. We again have no reason to believe this. In fact, every indication we have is that physics continues working even in absolute vacuum with no mass or energy, quantum fluctuations still occur.

Lastly, you previously said that we could model what alternate universes with different constants would look like. Now you are saying that physics can't exist without the universe existing. It's got to be one or the other.

 

[[serious]]

Which is what I said. Space, matter, energy and time didn't exist. If space, matter, energy, and time didn't exist the laws of physics could not exist.

Let me back up on this and approach it according to the op. Can God exist apart from any universe? Same answer for physics

 

[KCfromNC]

If God can create a universe where all of these other needs are met through natural processes, why not abiogenesis. Why stop just short?

Because as our knowledge advances it gets harder and harder to find reasonable sounding places to hide a god of the gaps? With the general increase in educational levels here in the west, you won't win many converts with the idea that god(s) pull the sun across the sky. But pretending that there's magic hiding at the very limits of our knowledge lets people who wish to believe keep on believing whatever it is they hope is true.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And how could science look back that far unless some law of nature was constant that far back?

They don't see past a certain point, which is the point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let me back up on this and approach it according to the op. Can God exist apart from any universe? Same answer for physics

God is eternal, we know that the laws of physics came into existence.

 

[Hieronymus]

So, numerous fine tuning threads have popped up recently, and all of them follow the same general pattern:

A very specific set of values for a number of constants cannot be much different than what they are for life as we know it to exist. Thus, some intelligent being must have set them to such values.

Which is rather obvious when you look at the chances of this occurring by chance.
It has beauty even.

Now, the traditional approach is to dissect each link in the chain pointing out that different values do not rule out other forms of intelligence which we may or may not be able to conceive of, the possibility that further theoretical work may indicate that the values are deterministic much like inflation did for the cosmological constant. They may also point out that most such values are only "tuned" to an order of magnitude. These arguments often fail to convince as they tend to touch on levels of math and science that are not always the most intuitive (conflating very small numbers with very precise numbers comes up frequently)

Instead, let me ask this:

Assuming some intelligence set the numbers such as they are, does that require a finely tuned deity?

As in "Who created God"?
Why would you assume God is created?
This would have been done by the GOD of God, or something...
And who created the GOD of God?
And why?
Who knows?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, you are misunderstanding. You are making two hard statements for which you have no supporting evidence. In addition, one of those points conflicts with one of your earlier claims:

1. You claim there was no mass or energy before the big bang. We have no way of assessing this. Nothing before the big bang has any causal relationship to our universe. We have no way of determining what was before the big bang because it has no impact on our universe.

I didn't say anything about "before" the big bang as there is nothing before the big bang that we can know. What we do know is that there was no space, no matter, no energy and no time.

2. You state that physics cannot exist without matter and energy. We again have no reason to believe this. In fact, every indication we have is that physics continues working even in absolute vacuum with no mass or energy, quantum fluctuations still occur.

No I didn't say that "the laws of Physics" cannot exist without matter and energy but for this universe we do know they didn't and then they did.

Lastly, you previously said that we could model what alternate universes with different constants would look like. Now you are saying that physics can't exist without the universe existing. It's got to be one or the other.

I didn't say they would have laws of physics prior to them existing.

 

[[serious]]

God is eternal, we know that the laws of physics came into existence.

How do we know that? The laws of nature go back as far as we can see, and it's the laws of nayure that keep us from seeing any further.

 

[[serious]]

I didn't say anything about "before" the big bang as there is nothing before the big bang that we can know. What we do know is that there was no space, no matter, no energy and no time.

if we can't know what was before (true), how are you making a difinitive statement that there was nothing? If we can't know what was there, we by definition can't know that nothing was there.

No I didn't say that "the laws of Physics" cannot exist without matter and energy but for this universe we do know they didn't and then they did.

as far back as we can theoretically know the laws of nature existed. It is the laws of nature that keep us from knowing anymore.

I didn't say they would have laws of physics prior to them existing.

Then what would we use to determine their nature if not physics?